ï»¿Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ [H]omer ] on Friday 21 April 2006 15:22 \__
Is there such a thing as a poster who is *not* a Troll in an
Yes. That which does not upset the participants of the group, by
negating the very definition. A Linux advocacy groups appeals to
those using Linux or those who are interested in learning about
it. There is no place here for people who preach in favour of
Windows. There are Windows advocacy groups for that. Anyone who
ignores this is only fooling him/herself.
Strange, I was under the impression that advocacy groups existed to
persuade others to support your ideals by use of rational argument;
the "others", in this case, being anyone who disagrees with or opposes
'advocacy n: active support; especially the act of pleading or arguing
for something' - dictionary.com
I can't very well "argue" with someone who already agrees with me.
'Usenet and other advocacy forums
Due to the often emotional nature of advocacy debate and its sometimes
narrow appeal to the wider user population, forums for discussion of
advocacy are often separate from those for general discussion. For
example, the comp.os.ms-windows Usenet hierarchy has a group reserved
solely for advocacyâ€$(Dth(Be Guide to the Windows newsgroups
exhorts Usenet posters not to "get involved in arguments about Windows
vs. OS/2 vs. Macintosh vs. NeXTSTEP except in the
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy group.' - wikipedia.org
If everyone who slips in the occasional personal insult, in the
midst of a heated debate, were to leave the group, this NG would
suddenly be empty.
How many insults do you see exchanged amongst Linux users?
Unless you think that the very presence of a Windows *user* in this
group constitutes Trolling? But then if there was nobody here from
the opposing team, who would you advocate to? It would be like
preaching to the converted!
No. The words are reaching Internet archives and are being read by
curious to-be O/S converts.
That's monologue, not dialogue. Advocacy on Usenet is not a one-way
communication, where posters can preach their opinions with impunity,
then run away and hope that their "sermons" have converted the
masses. Archives are for posterity, research, and record-keeping, not
dialogue. If you want to write speeches, do it on a Website; if you
want to debate, do it in an interactive forum such as Usenet.
It's been said time after time, in many different ways; advocacy
groups are not meant to be warm fuzzy friendly places.
This does not justify the presence of opponents and flamers.
You cannot advocate without opposition; that's like playing yourself
at chess. That is justification enough. WRT flamers, yes there are
vandals and anarchists - but I get the feeling that you have stretched
the definition rather too far.
If there was a devout church down the road, would you march in naked
just for spite? Or an attempt to 'educate'?
Neither. If I was a "believer" I would join all the other "believers"
in worship, which they do unchallenged (in the sanctuary of their
church). Advocacy groups are not meant to be sanctuaries. If you want
to cuddle and sing songs, there are other groups for that. COLA is a
place for debate; not a church. If I wanted to debate my "faith" with
a churchgoer of another "religion", I would "take it outside" -
i.e. to a place more suitable for debate ... e.g. my local bar. In the
context of Linux advocacy, COLA is that bar.
I think of this group as a good place for exchange of information
re. Linux progress and merits. The rest is noise, which you can
easily kill file based on name or subject line. That's just my own
So you walk into a bar, then complain about all the smoke and noise?
Then to mitigate the problem, you wear a pair of earmuffs and
blinkers, then stand in the corner muttering to yourself, reciting
You don't get out much, do you?